That's a good question - it deserves an answer. Over 80 percent of
Americans
demand secured borders and illegal migration stopped. But what would
happen
if all 20 million or more vacated America? The answers may surprise you!

In California, if 3.5 million illegal aliens moved back to Mexico, it
would
leave an extra $10.2 billion to spend on overloaded school systems,
bankrupted hospitals and overrun prisons. It would leave highways
cleaner,
safer and less congested. Everyone could understand one another as
English
became the dominate language again.

In Colorado, 500,000 illegal migrants, plus their 300,000 kids and
grand-kids - would move back "home," mostly to Mexico. That would save
Coloradans an estimated $2 billion (other experts say $7 BIL) annually
in
taxes that pay for schooling, medical, social-services and incarceration
costs. It means 12,000 gang members would vanish out of Denver alone.
Colorado would save more than $20 million in prison costs, and the
terror
that those 7,300 alien criminals set upon local citizens. Denver Officer
Don
Young and hundreds of Colorado victims would not have suffered death,
accidents, rapes and other crimes by illegals.
Denver Public Schools would not suffer a 67 percent drop out/flunk out
rate
via thousands of illegal alien students speaking 41 different languages.
At
least 200,000 vehicles would vanish from our gridlocked cities in
Colorado.
Denver's four percent unemployment rate would vanish as our working poor
would gain jobs at a living wage.

In Florida, 1.5 million illegals would return the Sunshine State back to
America, the rule of law and English.

In Chicago, Illinois, 2.1 million illegals would free up hospitals,
schools,
prisons and highways for a safer, cleaner and more crime-free
experience.

If 20 million illegal aliens returned "home" --

If 20 million illegal aliens returned "home," the U.S. economy would
return
to the rule of law. Employers would hire legal American citizens at a
living wage. Everyone would pay their fair share of taxes because they
wouldn't be working off the books. That would result in an additional
$401
billion in IRS income taxes collected annually, and an equal amount for
local state and city coffers.

No more push '1' for Spanish or '2' for English. No more confusion in
American schools that now must content with over 100 languages that
degrade
the educational system for American kids. Our overcrowded schools would
lose more than two million illegal alien kids at a cost of billions in
ESL
and free breakfasts and lunches.

We would lose 500,000 illegal criminal alien inmates at a cost of more
than
$1.6 billion annually. That includes 15,000 MS-13 gang members who
distribute $130 billion in drugs annually would vacate our country. In
cities like L.A., 20,000 members of the "18th Street Gang" would vanish
from
our nation. No more Mexican forgery gangs for ID theft from Americans!
No
more foreign rapists and child molesters!

Losing more than 20 million people would clear up our crowded highways
and
gridlock. Cleaner air and less drinking and driving American deaths by
illegal aliens!

Drain on America's economy; taxpayers harmed, employers get rich

Over $80 billion annually wouldn't return to their home countries by
cash
transfers. Illegal migrants earned half that money untaxed, which
further
drains America's economy - which currently suffers an $8.7 trillion
debt.

At least 400,000 anchor babies would not be born in our country, costing
us
$109 billion per year per cycle. At least 86 hospitals in California,
Georgia and Florida would still be operating instead of being bankrupted
out
of existence because illegals pay nothing via the EMTOLA Act. Americans
wouldn't suffer thousands of TB and hepatitis cases rampant in our
country-brought in by illegals unscreened at our borders.

Our cities would see 20 million less people driving, polluting and grid
locking our cities. It would also put the "progressives" on the horns of
a
dilemma; illegal aliens and their families cause 11 percent of our
greenhouse gases.

Over one million of Mexico's poorest citizens now live inside and along
our
border from Brownsville, Texas to San Diego, California in what the New
York
Times called, "colonias" or new neighborhoods. Trouble is, those living
areas resemble Bombay and Calcutta where grinding poverty, filth,
diseases,
drugs, crimes, no sanitation and worse. They live without sewage, clean
water, streets, electricity, roads or any kind of sanitation. The New
York
Times reported them to be America's new "Third World" inside our own
country. Within 20 years, at their current growth rate, they expect 20
million residents of those colonias. (I've seen them personally in Texas
and
Arizona; it's sickening beyond anything you can imagine.) By enforcing
our
laws, we could repatriate them back to Mexico.

High integrity, ethical invitation

We invite 20 million aliens to go home, fix their own countries and/or
make
a better life in Mexico. We invite a million people into our country
legally
more than all other countries combined annually. We cannot and must not
allow anarchy at our borders, more anarchy within our borders and
growing
lawlessness at every level in our nation.

It's time to stand up for our country, our culture, our civilization and
our
way of life.

3077India

11-22-07, 11:31 PM

No we don't need them!!!! Send them back!!!! If they want to be here, then let them come through the legal way!!!!!

Mytcbra96

11-23-07, 04:52 AM

I agree we dont need them. I also dont agree with we can't round them up, "I can't" never did anything! :evilgrin:

Scottyva

11-23-07, 02:22 PM

I also concur. its almost feels like our Civilian Leaders dont want the embarrasment of actually following the laws of the Republic.

yellowwing

11-23-07, 02:33 PM

It started hundreds of years ago!

Zulu 36

11-23-07, 02:50 PM

Economics is not a zero-sum game as some of our politicians insist it is (many of whom actually know better). No one has to "lose" in order for others to "gain."

Removing the illegal aliens would do several things beside all of those benefits listed in the article. First, it would indeed free up a large amount of rather mudane and labor intensive, "stoop-labor," type jobs.

A perfect fit for all of the welfare rats that can now be removed from the public dole and have simple, entry-level jobs available that they can perform with their dismal education (as proven by equally ill-educated illegal aliens), yet have the opportunities as legal citizens to improve their p*ss-poor education so as to advance to better jobs in the future.

Refusal to work is not an excuse to return to the dole. True physical inability to work may be, but must be evaluated strictly and firmly. Some kind of work can be found for those overweight, diabetic "poor people" who still somehow managed to get morbidly obese. Not too many poor fat people in the truly poor Third World.

Further, one very quick way to slow illegal immigration is to remove "birthright citizenship." This is a major draw for illegals. Once baby is born here, mommy and daddy can stay. It is not a Constitutionally mandated right, but instead a statuatory right. Congress giveth and Congress can taketh away.

Yeah, right.

michaelbradley

11-23-07, 02:53 PM

:mad: if they want to live in the U. S. then live here legal:devious:

sparkie

11-23-07, 03:05 PM

I'd be back to flippin my own burgers, and cuttin my own grass,,,,,, Wait,,, I do that now.
Changen my oil, washing my car, building my own room addition,,,,, Yep, Don't Need Em.

3077India

11-23-07, 03:23 PM

It started hundreds of years ago!They didn't have a country. :p

3077India

11-23-07, 03:29 PM

Further, one very quick way to slow illegal immigration is to remove "birthright citizenship." This is a major draw for illegals. Once baby is born here, mommy and daddy can stay. It is not a Constitutionally mandated right, but instead a statuatory right. Congress giveth and Congress can taketh away.

Yeah, right.You might want to read Article of Amendment 14, Section 1 (http://www.house.gov/house/Constitution/Amend.html). Which says, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." It will actually take a constitutional amendment to end birthright citizenship.

sgtofrifleman

11-23-07, 03:40 PM

Send them packing and wait your time to come here legally.

yellowwing

11-23-07, 03:50 PM

You might want to read Article of Amendment 14, Section 1 (http://www.house.gov/house/Constitution/Amend.html). Which says, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." It will actually take a constitutional amendment to end birthright citizenship.

That's a sticky wicket. Plus add in the difference between a Cuban and boatloads of Chinese. Anomalies like Elian Gonzales pop-up and throw the laws out of whack.

3077India

11-23-07, 04:03 PM

That's a sticky wicket. Plus add in the difference between a Cuban and boatloads of Chinese. Anomalies like Elian Gonzales pop-up and throw the laws out of whack.Not trying to discuss how it might have been abused, misused or ignored in the past. Only pointed out that it would take more than a Federal Statute to end birthright citizenship.

ivalis

11-23-07, 04:42 PM

I question the statistics listed.

For example, the article indicates that there are 500,000 illegal immigrants in prisons/jails. As of 6/30/2006 the total US prison/jail population of the country was approx (per dept of justice figures) 2,250,000. The number quoted in the article suggests that approx. 22% of the prison population is illegal immigrants. I find this (22%) figure laughable.

When it is so easy to disprove one statistic I loose all faith in the rest of the statistics.

The argument against illegal aliens is still valid, the above article does not make the point when it uses baloney stats.

michaelbradley

11-23-07, 08:51 PM

well most everyone came down the line from immagrants,,,, my only complaint is if they want to live and work here then come thru the legal channels ,,, like ghostriderjpd writes scout sniper training or better yet qualification training

gutinstinct

11-24-07, 12:53 PM

I have no use for any illegal immigrant(s). By this, a person or persons entering the country illegally is sending a red signal (flag) that he or she (right from the get go) doesn't respect our laws. Am sure that most of the immigrants are good people but it sends the wrong message out, " Just enter our country and you got it made." That's the type of attitude am seeing & am hearing here in NYC. I am sick and tired of the excuses that they had to get out of their country in a hurry. One of my Grandfather's immigrated to this country with his family right after WWI. As well as the other before WWII. Both Grandparents & their families(My father & mother) had to endure hardships while waiting to enter this GREAT country LEGALLY. I say that when we catch them we should ship them home to there country. If we catch them again ship them home in a box. That's the way I feel on the issue Marines.

OLE SARG

11-24-07, 01:40 PM

I'm getting sick of paying my taxes to support their ****ing asses!!!!!!! I mean this bull**** of not being able to ask if they are legal or not - give me a ****ing break. Paying for their medical care through the local emergency rooms - feeding their asses - paying for their kid's education - etc. Sick to death of this ****.
THEN you have the poor land owners down South ALONG THE BORDER who have to put up with these turds trashing their property, dying on their property, ****ting on their property, trespassing on their property, etc.
If we could only get our LOWEST RATED CONGRESS IN HISTORY OFF THEIR ****ING FAT ASSES FROM RECESSES AND ****ING SLEEP-INS, AND GET SOMETHING, ANY THING DONE ON THIS SUPPOSEDLY GREAT IMMIGRATION BILL THEY HAVE NNNNOOOOTTTTT BEEN WORKING ON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! RIGHT NOW CONGRESS IS A LEECH ON US TAX-PAYERS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

SEMPER FI,

Gary Hall

11-24-07, 02:13 PM

No to all illegals, and put the hurt (financial) on anybody that hires them. Gary Hall

SlingerDun

11-24-07, 03:49 PM

It started hundreds of years ago! Woooooo Yellowing scores!http://www.leatherneck.com/forums/images/icons/icon14.gif
They didn't have a country. :pOh is that so. I'd like to have seen any fine haired politician try to penny loafer and brief case his way into the Ochoco stronghold of the Snake War Tribes back in the day. And tell them it wasn't there country.

--->Dave

3077India

11-24-07, 04:25 PM

Oh is that so...Yes it is.

Zulu 36

11-24-07, 05:35 PM

You might want to read Article of Amendment 14, Section 1 (http://www.house.gov/house/Constitution/Amend.html). Which says, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." It will actually take a constitutional amendment to end birthright citizenship.

Sorry for the delay in response. Some legal research was necessary.

In reading the US Constitution and the annotations (discussions of statutes and case law) available through FindLaw, it appears that the operative phrase in this part of the 14th Amendment is,"...and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, ...".

Congress has the authority, under common law, to determine who is "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States" for citizenship purposes. For instance, the children born in the US of foreign diplomats are NOT citizens of the US. Congress can indeed legislate that the children of persons illegally in the US, are nationals of the country of which their parents are citizens.

Now, could this be argued in the other direction? Of course; that is how lawyers make their money.

If Congress chooses, they can remove any birthright citizenship from the children of illegal aliens through legislation on the jurisdiction matter. Furthermore, they could deny the federal courts from having any legal jurisdiction over the question of the Constitutionality of any such statute.

Now, does Congress have the balls to do such a thing? Does the sitting President of the time have the balls to sign it into law? Probably not on both counts. Mores the pity.

This is the link to the annotations for the 14th Amendment as applied to citizenship. See specifically Footnote 7 and the text it references:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment14/01.html#1

jrhd97

11-24-07, 06:36 PM

Our current crop of politicians don't have the balls! That is the problem! When we the people have had enough and stand up, stop voting for these leeches, and demand a change it just might happen.
My whole family, except for a couple natives in the wood pile, are immigrants ans can be tracked through Ellis Island and Philladelphia LEGALLY.
When we lack the balls to p### off our criminals to the south and inforce the laws it sets the standard, sends the word that we are not seriouse, sooo .... they keep coming.
Arm the National Guard troops on the border and let the Border Control do there jobs.

3077India

11-24-07, 08:44 PM

Sorry for the delay in response. Some legal research was necessary.

In reading the US Constitution and the annotations (discussions of statutes and case law) available through FindLaw, it appears that the operative phrase in this part of the 14th Amendment is,"...and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, ...".

Congress has the authority, under common law, to determine who is "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States" for citizenship purposes. For instance, the children born in the US of foreign diplomats are NOT citizens of the US. Congress can indeed legislate that the children of persons illegally in the US, are nationals of the country of which their parents are citizens.

Now, could this be argued in the other direction? Of course; that is how lawyers make their money.

If Congress chooses, they can remove any birthright citizenship from the children of illegal aliens through legislation on the jurisdiction matter. Furthermore, they could deny the federal courts from having any legal jurisdiction over the question of the Constitutionality of any such statute.

Now, does Congress have the balls to do such a thing? Does the sitting President of the time have the balls to sign it into law? Probably not on both counts. Mores the pity.

This is the link to the annotations for the 14th Amendment as applied to citizenship. See specifically Footnote 7 and the text it references:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment14/01.html#1
It is interesting that you pick and choose those parts which best fits the point your are defending,:p but how about this portion:
In Afroyim v. Rusk, 11 a divided Court extended the force of this first sentence beyond prior holdings, ruling that it withdrew from the Government of the United States the power to expatriate United States citizens against their will for any reason. ''[T]he Amendment can most reasonably be read as defining a citizenship which a citizen keeps unless he voluntarily relinquishes it. Once acquired, this Fourteenth Amendment citizenship was not to be shifted, canceled, or diluted at the will of the Federal Government, the States, or any other government unit. It is true that the chief interest of the people in giving permanence and security to citizenship in the Fourteenth Amendment was the desire to protect Negroes. . . . This undeniable purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment to make citizenship of Negroes permanent and secure would be frustrated by holding that the Government can rob a citizen of his citizenship without his consent by simply proceeding to act under an implied general power to regulate foreign affairs or some other power generally granted.''But why simply stop there, below I post the full text of the article you quote:
SECTION 1. RIGHTS GUARANTEED: CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment14/01.html#t7)

In the Dred Scott Case, 1 Chief Justice Taney for the Court ruled that United States citizenship was enjoyed by two classes of individuals: (1) white persons born in the United States as descendents of ''persons, who were at the time of the adoption of the Constitution recognized as citizens in the several States and [who] became also citizens of this new political body,'' the United States of America, and (2) those who, having been ''born outside the dominions of the United States,'' had migrated thereto and been naturalized therein. The States were competent, he continued, to confer state citizenship upon anyone in their midst, but they could not make the recipient of such status a citizen of the United States. The ''Negro,'' or ''African race,'' according to the Chief Justice, was ineligible to attain United States citizenship, either from a State or by virtue of birth in the United States, even as a free man descended from a Negro residing as a free man in one of the States at the date of ratification of the Constitution. 2 Congress, first in Sec. 1 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 3 and then in the first sentence of Sec. 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment, 4 set aside the Dred Scott holding in a sentence ''declaratory of existing rights, and affirmative of existing law. . . .'' 5

While clearly establishing a national rule on national citizenship and settling a controversy of long standing with regard to the derivation of national citizenship, the Fourteenth Amendment did not obliterate the distinction between national and state citizenship, but rather preserved it. 6 The Court has accorded the first sentence of Sec. 1 a construction in accordance with the congressional intentions, holding that a child born in the United States of Chinese parents who themselves were ineligible to be naturalized is nevertheless a citizen of the United States entitled to all the rights and privileges of citizenship. 7 Congress' intent in including the qualifying phrase ''and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,'' was apparently to exclude from the reach of the language children born of diplomatic representatives of a foreign state and children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation, both recognized exceptions to the common-law rule of acquired citizenship by birth, 8 as well as children of members of Indian tribes subject to tribal laws. 9 The lower courts have generally held that the citizenship of the parents determines the citizenship of children born on vessels in United States territorial waters or on the high seas. 10

In Afroyim v. Rusk, 11 a divided Court extended the force of this first sentence beyond prior holdings, ruling that it withdrew from the Government of the United States the power to expatriate United States citizens against their will for any reason. ''[T]he Amendment can most reasonably be read as defining a citizenship which a citizen keeps unless he voluntarily relinquishes it. Once acquired, this Fourteenth Amendment citizenship was not to be shifted, canceled, or diluted at the will of the Federal Government, the States, or any other government unit. It is true that the chief interest of the people in giving permanence and security to citizenship in the Fourteenth Amendment was the desire to protect Negroes. . . . This undeniable purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment to make citizenship of Negroes permanent and secure would be frustrated by holding that the Government can rob a citizen of his citizenship without his consent by simply proceeding to act under an implied general power to regulate foreign affairs or some other power generally granted.'' 12 In a subsequent decision, however, the Court held that persons who were statutorily naturalized by being born abroad of at least one American parent could not claim the protection of the first sentence of Sec. 1 and that Congress could therefore impose a reasonable and non-arbitrary condition subsequent upon their continued retention of United States citizenship. 13 Between these two decisions there is a tension which should call forth further litigation efforts to explore the meaning of the citizenship sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Citizens of the United States within the meaning of this Amendment must be natural and not artificial persons; a corporate body is not a citizen of the United States. 14

[Footnote 2] The controversy, political as well as constitutional, which this case stirred and still stirs, is exemplified and analyzed in the material collected in S. Kutler, The Dred Scott Decision: Law or Politics? (1967).

[Footnote 3] ''That all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States; and such citizens, of every race and color, without regard to any previous condition of slavery or involuntary servitude . . . shall have the same right[s]. . . .'' Ch. 31, 14 Stat. 27.

[Footnote 4] The proposed amendment as it passed the House contained no such provision, and it was decided in the Senate to include language like that finally adopted. Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess. 2560, 2768-69, 2869 (1866). The sponsor of the language said: ''This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is . . . a citizen of the United States.'' Id. at 2890. The legislative history is discussed at some length in Afroyim v. Rusk, 387 U.S. 253, 282 (http://www.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=387&invol=253#282)-86 (1967) (Justice Harlan dissenting).

[Footnote 11] 387 U.S. 253 (http://www.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=387&invol=253) (1967). Though the Court upheld the involuntary expatriation of a woman citizen of the United States during her marriage to a foreign citizen in Mackenzie v. Hare, 239 U.S. 299 (http://www.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=239&invol=299) (1915), the subject first received extended judicial treatment in Perez v. Brownell, 356 U.S. 44 (http://www.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=356&invol=44) (1958), in which by a five-to-four decision the Court upheld a statute denaturalizing a native-born citizen for having voted in a foreign election. For the Court, Justice Frankfurter reasoned that Congress' power to regulate foreign affairs carried with it the authority to sever the relationship of this country with one of its citizens to avoid national implication in acts of that citizen which might embarrass relations with a foreign nation. Id. at 60-62. Three of the dissenters denied that Congress had any power to denaturalize. See discussion supra pp. 272-76. In the years before Afroyim, a series of decisions had curbed congressional power.

[Footnote 12] Afroyim v. Rusk, 387 U.S. 253, 262 (http://www.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=387&invol=253#262)-63 (1967). Four dissenters, Justices Harlan, Clark, Stewart, and White, controverted the Court's reliance on the history and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment and reasserted Justice Frankfurter's previous reasoning in Perez. Id. at 268.

[Footnote 14] Insurance Co. v. New Orleans, 13 Fed. Cas. 67 (C.C.D.La. 1870). Not being citizens of the United States, corporations accordingly have been declared unable ''to claim the protection of that clause of the Fourteenth Amendment which secures the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States against abridgment or impairment by the law of a State.'' Orient Ins. Co. v. Daggs, 172 U.S. 557, 561 (http://www.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=172&invol=557#561) (1869). This conclusion was in harmony with the earlier holding in Paul v. Virginia, 75 U.S. (8 Wall.) 168 (http://www.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=75&invol=168) (1869), to the effect that corporations were not within the scope of the privileges and immunities clause of state citizenship set out in Article IV, Sec. 2. See also Selover, Bates & Co. v. Walsh, 226 U.S. 112, 126 (http://www.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=226&invol=112#126) (1912); Berea College v. Kentucky, 211 U.S. 45 (http://www.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=211&invol=45) (1908); Liberty Warehouse Co. v. Tobacco Growers, 276 U.S. 71, 89 (http://www.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=276&invol=71#89) (1928); Grosjean v. American Press Co., 297 U.S. 233, 244 (http://www.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=297&invol=233#244) (1936).It appears there is considerable debate as to whether or not the US Constitution guarantees birthright citizenship. As such the only way this can be constitutionally clarified once-and-for-all would be a Constitutional Amendment; otherwise the debate will continue. So again I state that the only way to end birthright citizenship and settle this debate will require a Constitutional Amendment that can only originate in the US Congress; but that isn't likely to happen anytime soon.

gutinstinct

11-24-07, 10:58 PM

This site used to be so simple. Now I need to hire a lawyer just to figure out what hell is going on(LOL). :D

jrhd97

11-25-07, 12:19 AM

No kidding, sometimes it feels like I'm reading a book.

3077India

11-25-07, 02:48 AM

This site used to be so simple. Now I need to hire a lawyer just to figure out what hell is going on(LOL). :DThen a few Intellectual Marines infiltrated and changed things. :nerd: :p

grampsdw251

11-25-07, 04:59 AM

Here's some more good readin' for you that was sent to me <br />
<br />
This should make everyone think, be you Democrat, Republican or Independent <br />
<br />
From a California school teacher: <br />
&quot;As you listen to the...

Gary Hall

11-25-07, 07:35 AM

Well Said and As used to be said in nearly any and all campaigns: "Your Vote and Influence will be and is Appreciated." With Kindest regards, Gary Hall.

gutinstinct

11-25-07, 12:02 PM

I really feel sorry for the future of this country relating to the immigration problems of today. We must stop it at all legal means possible. Its do or die Marines.

3077India

11-25-07, 12:09 PM

I found the above &quot;email&quot; on Snopes.com entitled, &quot;The Cost of Tomatoes,&quot; it's origins are undetermined. Therefore, the information contained can't be verified. USE EXTREME CAUTION WHEN YOU...

CombatCmra

11-25-07, 01:20 PM

Before you can tackle the problem with the illegal immigrants that are "in-country". You need to secure the borders first! This can be done by having the National Guard augment the Border Patrol, and patrol the borders! Once the borders are secure then you can turn your focus to dealing with the illegals in country.

For those already in-country:

Crack down on those who hire them!

Allow schools to require proof of citizenship!

When found, don't document, provide them with a court date and send them out! Detain, and then give them a ride (bus, plane, or train) back to their country of origin! No stops at their illegal residence either!

I hope some of these PC *******s get on this site and read some of these posts!!!!! MAYBE, JUST MAYBE, they would get off their FATASSES and GET SOMETHING done about illegal immigration!!!!!!!!!!!!!! BUT with skinnyass pelosi heading up things with jingles reid, I doubt that **** is going to get done for the next 2 years!!!!!!!!!!

I'd like to know how many of you folks could prove your citizenship in the next 5 minutes.

Absent a certified birth certificate or passport you would be SOL.

SlingerDun

11-25-07, 03:40 PM

This site used to be so simple.It aint? Well its entertaining when i consider the sources and sift through the scat. Kinda like listening to George Jefferson off on a tangent doling out quotes from law books and such.

--->Dave

Zulu 36

11-25-07, 04:14 PM

It is interesting that you pick and choose those parts which best fits the point your are defending,:p but how about this portion: But why simply stop there, below I post the full text of the article you quote:It appears there is considerable debate as to whether or not the US Constitution guarantees birthright citizenship. As such the only way this can be constitutionally clarified once-and-for-all would be a Constitutional Amendment; otherwise the debate will continue. So again I state that the only way to end birthright citizenship and settle this debate will require a Constitutional Amendment that can only originate in the US Congress; but that isn't likely to happen anytime soon.

But the trick in dealing with law and the Constitution is that the operative phrase must be identified and applied. I think I did that in the matter we are discussing. We cannot try to apply the entire 14th Amendment or Title 8 U.S.C. to our argument as they are not applicable in their entirety. Lawyers do exactly this, as do judges, justices, and politicians.

We're not talking about involuntarily removing someone from their citizenship. We're not talking about denying citizenship to "Negros" or the "African race" who were not illegal aliens, nor Chinese immigrants who were, likewise, not illegal aliens.

We're talking about precluding someone from automatically getting citizenship on the basis of unlawful presence in the United States, albeit by the parents of the individual(s) involved. I freely admit that taking citizenship away from those currently in possession of it would be a violation of the Constitution and federal law as currently written. Nor should it be.

However, I submit that federal statutory law can be changed to restrict and/or prohibit further such grants of automatic citizenship. Furthermore, I believe the law can, and should, be changed to prohibit citizenship to any child born in the United States to anyone not already a citizen or legal resident alien.

I believe that it is a matter of Congress defining what "jurisdiction" means in the context of the 14th Amendment, then enacting the appropriate laws.

If Congress can Constitutionally enact certain "reasonable" firearms possession controls under the 2d Amendment, then certainly Congress can, and should, do the same with citizenship.

However, it still all comes down to one little detail: Congress does not have the balls to do this, either statutorily or through an Constitutional amendment.

gutinstinct

11-25-07, 04:34 PM

I agree with you SlingerDun 100%. It's kind of funny. :D

3077India

11-25-07, 04:36 PM

But the trick in dealing with law and the Constitution is that the operative phrase must be identified and applied. I think I did that in the matter we are discussing. We cannot try to apply the entire 14th Amendment or Title 8 U.S.C. to our argument as they are not applicable in their entirety. Lawyers do exactly this, as do judges, justices, and politicians.

We're not talking about involuntarily removing someone from their citizenship. We're not talking about denying citizenship to "Negros" or the "African race" who were not illegal aliens, nor Chinese immigrants who were, likewise, not illegal aliens.

We're talking about precluding someone from automatically getting citizenship on the basis of unlawful presence in the United States, albeit by the parents of the individual(s) involved. I freely admit that taking citizenship away from those currently in possession of it would be a violation of the Constitution and federal law as currently written. Nor should it be.

However, I submit that federal statutory law can be changed to restrict and/or prohibit further such grants of automatic citizenship. Furthermore, I believe the law can, and should, be changed to prohibit citizenship to any child born in the United States to anyone not already a citizen or legal resident alien.

I believe that it is a matter of Congress defining what "jurisdiction" means in the context of the 14th Amendment, then enacting the appropriate laws.

If Congress can Constitutionally enact certain "reasonable" firearms possession controls under the 2d Amendment, then certainly Congress can, and should, do the same with citizenship.

However, it still all comes down to one little detail: Congress does not have the balls to do this, either statutorily or through an Constitutional amendment.How are they not applicable? They deal with the subject of Citizenship and have been applied, it would seem, to all facets of it. To claim that all Congress needs to do is merely pass a law that ends birthright citizenship, doesn't necessarily guarantee that the ACLU or some other group won't challenge it in the Federal Courts and get it over turned. To settle this issue, as I have said before, will require a Constitutional Amendment.

At any rate, the Ratification of the 14th (& 15th) amendment(s) is dubious at best, since State Ratification Certificates are lacking for several states that supposedly ratified this amendment(s). Yet, the error was never corrected and the gov't continues to accept the amendment(s) as legitimate. BUT I DIGRESS...

Zulu 36

11-25-07, 05:25 PM

How are they not applicable? They deal with the subject of Citizenship and have been applied, it would seem, to all facets of it. To claim that all Congress needs to do is merely pass a law that ends birthright citizenship, doesn't necessarily guarantee that the ACLU or some other group won't challenge it in the Federal Courts and get it over turned. To settle this issue, as I have said before, will require a Constitutional Amendment.

At any rate, the Ratification of the 14th (& 15th) amendment(s) is dubious at best, since State Ratification Certificates are lacking for several states that supposedly ratified this amendment(s). Yet, the error was never corrected and the gov't continues to accept the amendment(s) as legitimate. BUT I DIGRESS...

Actually, it can be as simple as Congress enacting a law and including a proviso that denies jurisdiction to the federal courts against any challenge. The ACLU could scream all they want, but no court would be able to hear their challenge if such a proviso were included. See Article III, (Judicial Department).

All courts inferior to the Supreme Court are created, controlled, and eliminated at the pleasure of Congress. Furthermore, Congress still has significant control over the Supreme Court in the area of numbers of justices, jurisdiction not enumerated in Article III, and a few others.

Congress actually denies jurisdiction to the federal courts on a very frequent basis. Nearly all funding "earmarks" are so denied. How often do you hear of those earmarks being contested in court by anyone? Because they can't. Hence the reason Congressmen and Senators continue to attach them to other bills. Because they can.

Also, in Article I (Legislative Department), Section 8 (Powers of Congress), Clause 4 (Naturalization and Bankruptcies), Congress has the undisputed power to determine who can and cannot come into the United States, and set conditions for that entry. My understanding of this clause would allow Congress the ability to deny birthright citizenship through legislation under this clause.

We can argue the constitutionality of birthright citizenship until we're blue in the face. Legal scholars spend their entire lives arguing the finer points of that document and still there is no 100% agreement on the meanings of many of those fine points - including birthright citizenship.

I am of the opinion that unless specifically prohibited, or otherwise enumerated by the Constitution, Congress can enact almost any legislation they want and deny jurisdiction to the courts. Of course the President has the veto pen and Congress has the public to answer to. Or special interest groups.

Gary Hall

11-25-07, 06:09 PM

Since you asked, I'll start it off, if you consider this won't do I can provide plenty more. On the day you were born (31 Aug., 1950) I was traveling with good company (W-3-1, 1st Mar Div., a guy named Chesty Puller was running the 1st Marine Regiment and I don't believe he was an illegal.) and we weren't running and hiding, we were going somewhere to kick some sorry asses. I believe the records show that some of us are still over there, standing firm, 57 years later. Col. Ray Murray had the 5th Marines and Col. Litzenberg had the 7th Marines. Backing up a little, in the summer of 1944 (I was 13), I had my first paying job, in a Gulf Filling Station in Aransas Pass, TX. I (we all) worked 12 hrs/day, 7 days/week and I was paid $15 for this. I saved most of mine that summer, almost $100 I recall. More records: Gas was 18 & 20 cents/gal & Dad had an "A" sticker on the right front of the windshield of our 1929 Model A Ford (4 cylinders). The "A" sticker meant that you could only purchase 3 gallons of gas per week, that's correct THREE Gallons per WEEK. Check this record out. In those days, an illegal was never even heard of, we all wanted to be Americans. We didn't have this sorry multicultural feces that has become so fashionable presently. And in my view it has become fashionable for the sorriest reasons, gathering up votes. Ivalis, I believe it's all a matter of not lying, stealing and cheating, which I am convinced upon much evidence is what politically correct really means. Follow the records. I got more, guys, if you can tolerate 'em. Gary Hall

3077India

11-25-07, 06:12 PM

Actually, it can be as simple as Congress enacting a law and including a proviso that denies jurisdiction to the federal courts against any challenge. The ACLU could scream all they want, but no court would be able to hear their challenge if such a proviso were included. See Article III, (Judicial Department). That is quite a stretch to assume that Congress would include such a provision. I can't think of any member of Congress that would vote in favor to end birthright citizenship for illegal immigrants; considering the fact that one doesn't need to be a citizen to vote in major elections and obtaining a Driver's license (for ID purposes at the polling place) can be as simple as providing a seemingly legitimate birth certificate, which are easily forged.

All courts inferior to the Supreme Court are created, controlled, and eliminated at the pleasure of Congress. Furthermore, Congress still has significant control over the Supreme Court in the area of numbers of justices, jurisdiction not enumerated in Article III, and a few others. It is true that Congress has the authority to create or abolish the Federal Courts. However, I'm curious, are you implying that Congress could coerce the Federal Courts with a threat that they would be abolished, if they didn't do as the Congress wanted???????:confused:

Congress actually denies jurisdiction to the federal courts on a very frequent basis. Nearly all funding "earmarks" are so denied. How often do you hear of those earmarks being contested in court by anyone? Because they can't. Hence the reason Congressmen and Senators continue to attach them to other bills. Because they can. I'm well aware of the fact that Congress has the authority to set the jurisdiction of the courts; however, your example about "earmarks" or I think you mean "riders" (aka pork) has been a common practice since the earliest days of the Republic; members of Congress do it, because there is nothing in the Constitution to stop them from doing it.

Also, in Article I (Legislative Department), Section 8 (Powers of Congress), Clause 4 (Naturalization and Bankruptcies), Congress has the undisputed power to determine who can and cannot come into the United States, and set conditions for that entry. My understanding of this clause would allow Congress the ability to deny birthright citizenship through legislation under this clause.The clause you reference above deals with how a person may become a naturalized citizen, but it neither implies nor specifically grants them the authority to decide Birthright Citizenship.

We can argue the constitutionality of birthright citizenship until we're blue in the face. Legal scholars spend their entire lives arguing the finer points of that document and still there is no 100% agreement on the meanings of many of those fine points - including birthright citizenship. I agree. The arguing stems in some part from the fact that amending the Constitution is so difficult, that legal scholars spend much of their time trying to find ways to twist the legal meanings in the various clauses of the Constitution and Amendments. Keeping in mind that 2/3rds of both houses of Congress must first pass a proposed Amendment, then 3/4ths of the states have to agree before the Amendment is ratified.

I am of the opinion that unless specifically prohibited, or otherwise enumerated by the Constitution, Congress can enact almost any legislation they want and deny jurisdiction to the courts. Of course the President has the veto pen and Congress has the public to answer to. Or special interest groups.Then you are a loose constructionist when it comes to interpreting the constitution. Whereas, I tend to be more of a strict constructionist.:nerd:

BUT I DIGRESS... AGAIN

OLE SARG

11-25-07, 06:24 PM

I'd like to know how many of you folks could prove your citizenship in the next 5 minutes.

Absent a certified birth certificate or passport you would be SOL.

I disagree!!!!!!!!!!!!! Most of us U. S. Marines HAVE A CERTIFIED BIRTH CERTIFICATE AAAANNNNDDDD A photo ID (that just RRRIIIPPPPSSSS the heart out of a ****ing democrat - the photo ID thing)!!!!

If you can't provide one or both of these documents, then YOU MIGHT BE ONE OF THEM!!!!!!!!

SEMPER FI,

ivalis

11-26-07, 05:32 AM

Gary, excellent history lesson. Still have mom's ration book with a few stamps left in it.

That being said, it still don't prove that you are a citizen.

As far as not having illegal immigrants back then, hell, they still occassionally throw somebody out of the country who entered right after WWII.

Sarge, I have a birth certificate that is literally as old as I am, it ain't good enough because it wasn't "certified" way back when.

CombatCmra

11-26-07, 11:12 AM

Official Passport or Tourist?

killerinstinct

11-26-07, 12:33 PM

you know this issue always suprises me. You have the political analysts telling us DAY after DAY that politicians dont want to upset these people because they are potential voters. When i hear this the first thing i am saying to myself is when are illegal aliens eligible to vote???

The next thing i ask is when i see these people walking and doing marches claiming we are americans why the **** ARE THEY WAIVING MEXICAN FLAGS!!!!! and not US FLAGS??!! I say build a fence and yes it might not keep them out but hopefully it will maim a few coming over.

michaelbradley

11-26-07, 12:51 PM

hey what about Fox news thismoring talking about the Army base being targeted by those rag heads coming thru the tunnels out of Mexico in to Az. My brother lives right there next to that base,,, his wife works there and that was his last duty station before he left the army after 27 years,,

RVHall

11-26-07, 01:30 PM

This must repeat what has been said many times, but the most practical way to stem the tide, in fact to reverse the tide, is to start throwing the CEO's and other officers of corporations in the slammer when they hire illegals or when they hire subcontractors who are predominantly comprised of illegals. That will stop this very quickly.

Of course, under the one dollar-one vote system that has evolved, this will never happen.

gwladgarwr

11-26-07, 01:44 PM

That's a sticky wicket. Plus add in the difference between a Cuban and boatloads of Chinese. Anomalies like Elian Gonzales pop-up and throw the laws out of whack.

Elian and sweatshop workers pulling up to port in a junk do not rate citizenship, so whatever.

Many illegal aliens flout the citizenship clause in order to avoid deportation by physically giving birth on US soil in order to avoid deportation ("anchor babies"). Now, the child born on US soil is American by birthright, regardless of how the parents got here.

However, I don't see where the law says you can't deport ole' Mama back to her little pueblo in Techuhathlican, Mexico or Tegulcigalpa, Guatemala and leave the child in Child Protective Services. If Mama and Papi want to endanger their children by raising them as illegal aliens who have no legal and sure means of making a living, so be it. Baby can stay here and be adopted by Joe and Alice Smith of Kensington, CO and Mami and Papi sent packing. Or, the Mami and Papi can take US-born "hijo", armed with his U.S. passport, with them as they get "re-patriated", and little "hijo" can come back when he's 18 and with full rights as a legal American citizen (though his time being brought up in his parents country, in my opinion, will make him less of an American in his heart than a countryman like that of his father and mother.)

See how THAT goes when junior comes back to the land of his "birth" but with the attitude of a paisano. He'll sponsor his Mami and Papi (as a birthright US citizen) along with the entire extended family, bring them in legally, and continue on with "la colonia".)

I think the US government can use a hand in enforcing immigration and citizenship laws. Every local jurisdiction should state in no uncertain terms that no social services or privileges accorded to legal US citizens and residents shall be extended to undocumented aliens, and that police have every right to verify citizenship or residency status.

Anything wrong with these two concepts? I highly doubt it.

Round 'em up, send 'em back, and seal the border. I don't see why this is a problem (unless you're big business who stands to lose billions in profit made off the back of cheap, illegal, and undocumented labor.)

:evilgrin: (LMAO) MY CHEESEHEAD POLITICAL BUDDY,WON'T DO THAT;CAUSE I KNOW WHERE HE LIVES!!!:D

Gary Hall

11-27-07, 07:23 PM

It is true that your "attaboy" is only the 2nd one I ever received as a consequence of 5 years in the USMC. I found them hard to come by and consequently they were always appreciated. Anyhow, you have caused me to wonder if I really am a US Citizen, I truly hope so. I looked in the dictionary at "citizen" and "alien". Is it true that I must be one or the other? I am convinced that the evidence is that I am not an alien, therefore ______________________. I would be interested in your thoughts as to what I might unknowingly be. When I was a youngster, I would notice the old guys with that 1000 yard stare and their lips moving and wondered what their thoughts might be. I think I am beginning to understand. We're finding out we might not be what we always thought we were. Kindest regards, Gary Hall

CRASH CORPORAL

11-28-07, 06:23 PM

Hey who's gonna do all the BS work like digging trenches for plumbing and electrical at new construction sites ? I wouldnt do it for for 8 hours a day @ $6.67 an hour

FistFu68

11-28-07, 07:27 PM

:evilgrin: BRING BAC THE CHAIN GANG SYSTEM FROM RAFFORD THEY DO IT FOR FREE :evilgrin:

sparkie

11-28-07, 07:36 PM

Then get rid of them. And a American can dig for $12.00 an hour. And improve this country with his riches. You never did 'BS' work? A Mex carpenter can put an American carpenter out of work by accepting less pay. It's done all the time. Remember when that meat packing company, Swift, I believe it was. Feds got the illegals busted? didn't take long for Americans to fill in.They needed jobs. I knew an honost roofer here in town who had a hard time competing. He wouldn't hire illegals. Now he is out of business.

gutinstinct

11-28-07, 07:46 PM

Hey CRASH. I feel that if they (illegals) weren't here in the first place the hourly rate would be alot higher. These companies who are hiring them are getting away with cheap labor. Thus, pushing out the American worker who would refuse to work for the rate you quoted. If this country enforced the laws of the land when pertaining to immigration it would give us all a chance to make a decent living. By this I mean that if there were no illegals these companies would be forced to pay at a much higher pay rate.

ivalis

11-28-07, 07:47 PM

Roofers around here have to compete w/ the amish. The black hats don't pay workers comp or social security taxes. Works out about the same as illegals.

Gary Hall

11-28-07, 07:52 PM

From reading these thread responses, my view about work is that the more physical it is and by being out in the slop (the World), the more likely honorable will be the work. My sympathies will always be with the laboring guys & gals. I mean the physical, sweating type of labor, because it tends to be more honest, from any viewpoint. I'm beginning to see "aliens" and "citizens" from a different perspective. Up to this time I thought that "aliens" were in disregard because of their illegal status; certainly not because of their disciplined efforts in doing their life's work. My conclusion is that there is an overabundance of "BS work" in the USA, however I believe the preponderance of it will not be found in the laboring ranks. Gary Hall

yellowwing

11-28-07, 08:00 PM

A free market economy will always find its equilibrium. With or without cheap labor.

Maybe that is the answer! The taxable higher wages can pay for the expense of a massive routing of illegal aliens.

From what I've seen, any blue collar type making good money will stimulate the economy with additional purchases from his hard earned pay.

CReeve

11-28-07, 09:40 PM

On reading how much bullsh*t that the illegals have disrespected our country and disrespect our laws. Any of you hear about this? It happened october 3rd of this year.

"
A Mexican bar owner in Reno Nevada flew the Mexican flag (http://www.krnv.com/Global/story.asp?S=7162515) above that of the United States. Only problem is that this is specifically illegal under United States Code Section 7, Title Four (http://uscode.house.gov/uscode-cgi/fastweb.exe?getdoc+uscview+t01t04+11057+0++%28%29% 20%20AND%20%28%284%29%20ADJ%20USC%29%3ACITE%20AND% 20%28USC%20w%2F10%20%287%29%29%3ACITE%20%20%20%20% 20%20%20%20%20), which states,

(c) No other flag or pennant should be placed above or, if on the same level, to the right of the flag of the United States of America, except during church services conducted by naval chaplains at sea, when the church pennant may be flown above the flag during church services for the personnel of the Navy. No person shall display the flag of the United Nations or any other national or international flag equal, above, or in a position of superior prominence or honor to, or in place of, the flag of the United States at any place within the United States or any Territory or possession thereof: Provided, That nothing in this section shall make unlawful the continuance of the practice heretofore followed of displaying the flag of the United Nations in a position of superior prominence or honor, and other national flags in positions of equal prominence or honor, with that of the flag of the United States at the headquarters of the United Nations.The brazen effrontery of the bar prompted an American veteran to cut down both flags. But when CNN reported on the event, they managed to significantly skew the perception. The CNN report simply states that the veteran was angry that the Mexican flag was placed above that of the US- no mention was made that it was in fact illegal under US law. CNN compounded their offense by showing in their video clip (http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/2007/10/03/krnv.mex.flag.flap.krnv), not the actual words of the relevant US code that outlaws this action, but instead 'flag rules' taken from USHistory.org (http://ushistory.org/), thus downplaying the actual offense, by suggesting that athe law is in fact merely recommended behavior. As in so much relating to the illegal alien lobby, apprently it is OK with CNN for immigrants to disrespect and/or disobey the laws of our country, but let one American try to react, and they scream bloody murder. Balance? What balance? Cross-posted on StoneHeads (http://gankomon.blogspot.com/)."

....and our president still lets the f****r live in our borders why? I give my salutations to the vet that did that. For that Marines, is a true loving american.

gwladgarwr

11-28-07, 11:48 PM

Young man:

You are right on way too many levels: the bar owner seems to forget where he is and he forgets (or ignores) where respect is due. The righteous American patriot who cut down that flag should be sainted.

However, the flag code is, as you said, not enforceable and purposefully so. It is not a "crime" to fly the flag of Mexico above our Old Glory. Someone had the foresight to realize that a freedom-loving country would value the actual freedom of expression above the symbol of that which represents the very freedom to express at all.

BUT, the implication is that there is also the RESPONSIBILITY to exercise that freedom of expression. That bar owner contemptuously ignored that responsibility of freedom of expression in the very land that granted it him to exercise it.

And it took a good patriot such as that man who risked a potential lynching by a mob of America-haters who are just as quick to leech off of the America they sneaked into while biting the hand that feeds them.

CNN did America a favor by highlighting the patriotic act of that veteran. It's about time.

BTW, and don't get me wrong, but on this site, if you are a poolee and not yet a Marine, you are allowed to post only in the Poolee Section. Your comments are highly commendable, but it would only be considerate that you post any reply in that section (provide links to the threat you're commenting on, of course) until you earn the title of Marine. (Not being rude or harsh, but I see good potential in you as a future Marine - you would only have to wait until graduation day at boot camp to rate that privilege.)

Good luck to you.

Sgt gw:usmc:

On reading how much bullsh*t that the illegals have disrespected our country and disrespect our laws. Any of you hear about this? It happened october 3rd of this year.

"
A Mexican bar owner in Reno Nevada flew the Mexican flag (http://www.krnv.com/Global/story.asp?S=7162515) above that of the United States. Only problem is that this is specifically illegal under United States Code Section 7, Title Four (http://uscode.house.gov/uscode-cgi/fastweb.exe?getdoc+uscview+t01t04+11057+0++%28%29% 20%20AND%20%28%284%29%20ADJ%20USC%29%3ACITE%20AND% 20%28USC%20w%2F10%20%287%29%29%3ACITE%20%20%20%20% 20%20%20%20%20), which states,

(c) No other flag or pennant should be placed above or, if on the same level, to the right of the flag of the United States of America, except during church services conducted by naval chaplains at sea, when the church pennant may be flown above the flag during church services for the personnel of the Navy. No person shall display the flag of the United Nations or any other national or international flag equal, above, or in a position of superior prominence or honor to, or in place of, the flag of the United States at any place within the United States or any Territory or possession thereof: Provided, That nothing in this section shall make unlawful the continuance of the practice heretofore followed of displaying the flag of the United Nations in a position of superior prominence or honor, and other national flags in positions of equal prominence or honor, with that of the flag of the United States at the headquarters of the United Nations.The brazen effrontery of the bar prompted an American veteran to cut down both flags. But when CNN reported on the event, they managed to significantly skew the perception. The CNN report simply states that the veteran was angry that the Mexican flag was placed above that of the US- no mention was made that it was in fact illegal under US law. CNN compounded their offense by showing in their video clip (http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/2007/10/03/krnv.mex.flag.flap.krnv), not the actual words of the relevant US code that outlaws this action, but instead 'flag rules' taken from USHistory.org (http://ushistory.org/), thus downplaying the actual offense, by suggesting that athe law is in fact merely recommended behavior. As in so much relating to the illegal alien lobby, apprently it is OK with CNN for immigrants to disrespect and/or disobey the laws of our country, but let one American try to react, and they scream bloody murder. Balance? What balance? Cross-posted on StoneHeads (http://gankomon.blogspot.com/)."

....and our president still lets the f****r live in our borders why? I give my salutations to the vet that did that. For that Marines, is a true loving american.

CRASH CORPORAL

12-01-07, 10:06 AM

Hey GUT. In this day and age when everything is OUTSOURCED if you get rid of the illegals , the next thing you know companies will start flying in plane loads of foreigners to come do a large progect then send them back cause it may be cheaper than hiring our owne. Bottomline is all they really care about is The $$$$$$ they save. Im all for taking care of our own and more jobs for americans but the truth is that there are way to many people out there that would rather sit at home an collect wellfare and foodstamps than go spend 8 hours outside doing some honest work.

gutinstinct

12-01-07, 10:29 AM

Crash, I agree with you 100% on that walfare thing but, am still a firm believer that if we start deporting these illegals it will be a start. We can than go after these companies who fly the workers in for the cheap labor. Its not going to be easy. It will be a uphill battle.

jrhd97

12-01-07, 09:10 PM

My brother in law is at Ft.Meade. He had a report cross his desk about illegals and gangs out at Ft.hood. The Mexican gangs are getting members to join the army to learn military tactics, then train the gang bangers so they are better equiped to deal with our police, border patrol, and the Mexican Army. The report was showing a major gang problem not just in town, but on post. :mad:

killerinstinct

12-03-07, 09:42 AM

Hey GUT. In this day and age when everything is OUTSOURCED if you get rid of the illegals , the next thing you know companies will start flying in plane loads of foreigners to come do a large progect then send them back cause it may be cheaper than hiring our owne. Bottomline is all they really care about is The $$$$$$ they save. Im all for taking care of our own and more jobs for americans but the truth is that there are way to many people out there that would rather sit at home an collect wellfare and foodstamps than go spend 8 hours outside doing some honest work.

I was reading an article about a local Austin tailoring business who went to Mexico to find a good tailor and ended up helping to obtain a work permist and visa to have a woman to work for them.

I dont mind businesses doing this because they do pay income taxes and are here legally. It's the ones who dont pay taxes and are paid under the table where all their money tax free is than shipped to their home country not paying their share.

Basically I just dont wnt the illegal ones here if they wanna work thats fine, as long as they do it legally. People make it seem like the country would suddenly come to a hault if we boot them all out. Well boot them out and make them pay to come in and pay for the money they earn.

OLE SARG

12-03-07, 10:03 AM

DOING ANYTHING WOULD BE GREAT, BUT DOING NOTHING AS OUR GOVERNMENT AND CONGRESS IS DOING IS DISGRACEFUL!!!!!!!!!!!!!! THE LAZY PRICKS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Oh wait a minute, the PRICKS are taking another ****ING recess!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Overpaid psedo-intellectual *******s!!!!!!

The flag, when carried in a procession with another flag or flags, should be either on the marching right; that is, the flag's own right, or, if there is a line of other flags, in front of the center of that line.

(a) The flag should not be displayed on a float in a parade except from a staff, or as provided in subsection (i) of this section.

(b) The flag should not be draped over the hood, top, sides, or back of a vehicle or of a railroad train or a boat. When the flag is displayed on a motorcar, the staff shall be fixed firmly to the chassis or clamped to the right fender.

(c) No other flag or pennant should be placed above or, if on the same level, to the right of the flag of the United States of America, except during church services conducted by naval chaplains at sea, when the church pennant may be flown above the flag during church services for the personnel of the Navy. No person shall display the flag of the United Nations or any other national or international flag equal, above, or in a position of superior prominence or honor to, or in place of, the flag of the United States at any place within the United States or any Territory or possession thereof: Provided, That nothing in this section shall make unlawful the continuance of the practice heretofore followed of displaying the flag of the United Nations in a position of superior prominence or honor, and other national flags in positions of equal prominence or honor, with that of the flag of the United States at the headquarters of the United Nations.

(d) The flag of the United States of America, when it is displayed with another flag against a wall from crossed staffs, should be on the right, the flag's own right, and its staff should be in front of the staff of the other flag.

(e) The flag of the United States of America should be at the center and at the highest point of the group when a number of flags of States or localities or pennants of societies are grouped and displayed from staffs.

(f) When flags of States, cities, or localities, or pennants of societies are flown on the same halyard with the flag of the United States, the latter should always be at the peak. When the flags are flown from adjacent staffs, the flag of the United States should be hoisted first and lowered last. No such flag or pennant may be placed above the flag of the United States or to the United States flag's right.

(g) When flags of two or more nations are displayed, they are to be flown from separate staffs of the same height. The flags should be of approximately equal size. International usage forbids the display of the flag of one nation above that of another nation in time of peace.

(h) When the flag of the United States is displayed from a staff projecting horizontally or at an angle from the window sill, balcony, or front of a building, the union of the flag should be placed at the peak of the staff unless the flag is at half-staff. When the flag is suspended over a sidewalk from a rope extending from a house to a pole at the edge of the sidewalk, the flag should be hoisted out, union first, from the building.

(i) When displayed either horizontally or vertically against a wall, the union should be uppermost and to the flag's own right, that is, to the observer's left. When displayed in a window, the flag should be displayed in the same way, with the union or blue field to the left of the observer in the street.

(j) When the flag is displayed over the middle of the street, it should be suspended vertically with the union to the north in an east and west street or to the east in a north and south street.

(k) When used on a speaker's platform, the flag, if displayed flat, should be displayed above and behind the speaker. When displayed from a staff in a church or public auditorium, the flag of the United States of America should hold the position of superior prominence, in advance of the audience, and in the position of honor at the clergyman's or speaker's right as he faces the audience. Any other flag so displayed should be placed on the left of the clergyman or speaker or to the right of the audience.

(l) The flag should form a distinctive feature of the ceremony of unveiling a statue or monument, but it should never be used as the covering for the statue or monument.

(m) The flag, when flown at half-staff, should be first hoisted to the peak for an instant and then lowered to the half-staff position. The flag should be again raised to the peak before it is lowered for the day. On Memorial Day the flag should be displayed at half-staff until noon only, then raised to the top of the staff. By order of the President, the flag shall be flown at half-staff upon the death of principal figures of the United States Government and the Governor of a State, territory, or possession, as a mark of respect to their memory. In the event of the death of other officials or foreign dignitaries, the flag is to be displayed at half-staff according to Presidential instructions or orders, or in accordance with recognized customs or practices not inconsistent with law. In the event of the death of a present or former official of the government of any State, territory, or possession of the United States, the Governor of that State, territory, or possession may proclaim that the National flag shall be flown at half-staff. The flag shall be flown at half-staff 30 days from the death of the President or a former President; 10 days from the day of death of the Vice President, the Chief Justice or a retired Chief Justice of the United States, or the Speaker of the House of Representatives; from the day of death until interment of an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, a Secretary of an executive or military department, a former Vice President, or the Governor of a State, territory, or possession; and on the day of death and the following day for a Member of Congress. The flag shall be flown at half-staff on Peace Officers Memorial Day, unless that day is also Armed Forces Day. As used in this subsection -

(1) the term "half-staff" means the position of the flag when it is one-half the distance between the top and bottom of the staff;
(2) the term "executive or military department" means any agency listed under sections 101 and 102 of title 5, United States Code; and
(3) the term "Member of Congress" means a Senator, a Representative, a Delegate, or the Resident Commissioner from Puerto Rico.

(n) When the flag is used to cover a casket, it should be so placed that the union is at the head and over the left shoulder. The flag should not be lowered into the grave or allowed to touch the ground.

(o) When the flag is suspended across a corridor or lobby in a building with only one main entrance, it should be suspended vertically with the union of the flag to the observer's left upon entering. If the building has more than one main entrance, the flag should be suspended vertically near the center of the corridor or lobby with the union to the north, when entrances are to the east and west or to the east when entrances are to the north and south. If there are entrances in more than two directions, the union should be to the east.

FistFu68

12-03-07, 08:23 PM

:evilgrin: I WANNA FLY OLD GLORY,THE USMC FLAG ON THE SAME POLE;AND THE POW FLAG.IN WHAT ORDER WOULD THE TWO LATTER,BE FLOWN IN THE CORRECT ORDER???POW.ABOVE USMC FLAG???:usmc: :iwo:

3077India

12-04-07, 07:39 AM

I WANNA FLY OLD GLORY,THE USMC FLAG ON THE SAME POLE;AND THE POW FLAG.IN WHAT ORDER WOULD THE TWO LATTER,BE FLOWN IN THE CORRECT ORDER???POW.ABOVE USMC FLAG??? Uhm, try using your commonsense in this matter.:nerd: I'll give u a hint, the one that isn't a flag representing a gov't agency should go on the bottom.:p No offense intended.

CRASH CORPORAL

12-04-07, 09:56 AM

Hey GUT Hey KILLER here's MY opinion

Why spend our tax dollars trying to hunt "illegals" down to deport them? Why not afford the opportunity to those who want to be here legally to do so and pay taxes.The jobs they do would still get done, the economy wouldnt go further down the drain and we'd have more tax paying citizens. If you think about it that way they themselves would in essence be contributing to "the cause". Use the extra revenue generated from the new tax payers to help fight the constant wave of more illegals entering. Basically let them shoot there family in the foot. If only 1/4 of the over two million illegals were to pay taxes that= Half a million new tax payers and that = many millions of tax $$$$$$$$$$ we didnt have. Why should our tax dollars be spent on a loosing battle? We find them,we kick them out,they come back,then rewind and start all over . Help them fight the battle against themselves. Someone much more intelligent than myself once said "KEEP YOUR FREINDS CLOSE BUT KEEP YOUR ENEMIES CLOSER"

Disclaimer: I am by no means an expert on immigration and/or immigration laws nor am I an expert on the economy or economics. This is just my opinion. One of the many reasons I LOVE MY COUNTRY is because we can speak our minds and others can agree or disagree but either way we have a right to an opinion

SEMPER FI DEVIL DOGS!!!!!!!!!:flag:

Proffitt

12-04-07, 11:21 AM

Damn right we need them....if we didn't have them, there wouldn't be all this controversy and bickering. That is what fuels most of everything in this country.

3077India

12-04-07, 11:51 AM

Why spend our tax dollars trying to hunt "illegals" down to deport them? Why not afford the opportunity to those who want to be here legally to do so and pay taxes.WE DO!!!! Legal immigrants AREN'T the problem, though. If we don't enforce our immigration laws, then why even have borders? Why have customs inspections on goods coming into the country?:nerd:

FistFu68

12-04-07, 12:53 PM

:evilgrin: NO OFFENSE TAKEN,"INDIA"NEXT TIME USE SOME FUCING COMMON SENSE;WHEN GIVING AN ANSWER TOO ME MARINE.'CAUSE IF I WANT ANY SMART-AZZ LIP FROM YOU I'LL SCAPE IT OFF MY ZIPPER(BOOT):D :iwo:

Proffitt

12-04-07, 02:16 PM

HAHAHA...I love it.

3077India

12-04-07, 04:03 PM

NO OFFENSE TAKEN,"INDIA"NEXT TIME USE SOME FUCING COMMON SENSE;WHEN GIVING AN ANSWER TOO ME MARINE.'CAUSE IF I WANT ANY SMART-AZZ LIP FROM YOU I'LL SCAPE IT OFF MY ZIPPER(BOOT) I did and that was the "SMART-AZZ" answer you got and, it would seem, the only kind you deserve, MARINE-WHO-CAN'T-SEEM-TO-FIND-THE-CAPS-LOCK-ON-HIS-KEYBOARD.:p

sparkie

12-04-07, 08:37 PM

India,,, Got a life/ Lets go out drinkin, You and I. I can help you lighten up. Bro.

3077India

12-04-07, 10:02 PM

...Got a life/ Lets go out drinkin, You and I. I can help you lighten up. Bro.:confused: :nerd: Thanx for the offer, but I already have a life, besides I know I'm not the one that needs to lighten.:p

RVHall

12-05-07, 04:52 AM

Why not afford the opportunity to those who want to be here legally to do so and pay taxes.
Miminum wage workers pay a miniscule portion of the taxes that fund our government.

We should decide where we want our nation to be in another generation, decide how to get there, and do it. In my opinion, a nation whose children rank in the bottom half of the world's industrialized nations in math and science is doomed to 2nd-tier economic status if we don't correct this. The world's future leaders will be focusing on technical industries loaded with highly-paid highly-educated professionals. Such corporations and their employees, as well as our successful entrepreneurs, and highly-skilled laborers pay the high taxes that fund most of our public works. All societies have those who will fill the lawn mowing niche if it is not filled by folks working for slave wages.

If we decide our goal is to load up with immigrants who perform the tasks that were once performed by our high school buddies who day dreamed in class and threw spit balls all day, then we can do that. I guess those guys are now relegated to being skid row bums, I'm not sure where the former broom pushers went.

I'd rather set and enforce a priority for attracting well educated immigrants who can make up the shortfall of our own science and engineering graduates to build a first-rate economy, and the technical know-how to ensure that the future Marine Corps is well equipped to defend us.